Compute HRA exemption (+80GG)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read-only computation. It details the formula, salary components (basic, retirement DA, turnover commission), and period-wise processing. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences front-load the key formula and rules. Every sentence provides unique value: formula, salary definition, regime, metro list, and 80GG alternative. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tax computation, the description covers the algorithm, constraints, salary definition, and alternative deduction. It omits return value details (no output schema), but that is acceptable per evaluation rules. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema labels. It explains salary components, period homogeneity, and the eightyGG object's requirement. This helps an agent understand which inputs matter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the exact formula (Rule 2A: least of three components) and the resource (HRA exemption with 80GG alternative). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like compute_tax or compare_regimes, which are not HRA-specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'Old regime only' and explains the 80GG alternative for rent payers without HRA. It includes the metro list for FY 2025-26. It does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., new regime), but the implication is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.